In re Interest of Mekhi S., 960 N.W.2d 732

In 2016 the State filed a juvenile petition; MyJhae and Zaniya were adjudicated and placed in DHHS custody with a permanency objective of legal guardianship.
In 2017 the juvenile court appointed a guardian for the two children and expressly retained jurisdiction over the children for modification or termination of the guardianship.
The court conducted periodic guardianship review hearings with State participation.
In September 2020 the guardian ad litem moved to terminate the guardianship; the court terminated it and placed the children back in DHHS custody.
The State then filed a second supplemental petition under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(8) seeking to reestablish juvenile-court jurisdiction and make placement/support orders; the GAL moved to dismiss, arguing the court never lost jurisdiction under § 43-1312.01(3).
The juvenile court dismissed the State’s second petition; the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding the dismissal did not substantially affect the State’s substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 43-247(8) required the State to file a second petition to reestablish juvenile-court jurisdiction after termination of a guardianship	§ 43-247(8) mandated a new adjudication to reinstate jurisdiction so the court could place the children in protective custody	The juvenile court had retained jurisdiction under § 43-1312.01(3) and prior jurisprudence; § 43-247(8) applies where jurisdiction has ended	The court held § 43-247(8) was for restoring jurisdiction that had ended; here jurisdiction had never ended, so the second petition was unnecessary
Whether dismissal of the second petition was a final, appealable order affecting a substantial right	Dismissal prevented the State from reestablishing jurisdiction and thereby impaired its parens patriae enforcement functions	Dismissal had no substantial final effect on the State’s rights because the court already retained jurisdiction and the relief sought was unnecessary or already in effect	The court held the dismissal did not substantially affect the State’s rights; therefore the Supreme Court lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal

Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 (2021) (appellate briefing and assignment-of-error rules)
In re Interest of Zachary B., 299 Neb. 187 (2018) (jurisdictional questions in juvenile appeals are matters of law)
In re Interest of Michael N., 302 Neb. 652 (2019) (requirement of a final order for appellate jurisdiction)
In re Interest of Noah B. et al., 295 Neb. 764 (2017) (State’s parens patriae interest and substantial-rights analysis in juvenile matters)
Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577 (2016) (what it means for an order to affect a substantial right/finality)
In re Guardianship of Rebecca B. et al., 260 Neb. 922 (2000) (juvenile court retains jurisdiction over guardianship matters)